Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Sometimes, anti-creationists riding the Owlhoot Trail want to slap leather with creationists but they don't bring a gun to a gunfight. They don't even bring a knife or a pointed stick. I reckon they don't want to say anything meaningful, they just want to "prove the st00pid dumb creotard" wrong. Problem is, they show their own lack of thought and look mighty silly.

Too many people read just the caption of a picture or a few lines of text and then leave a comment. Unfortunately, this short attention span trend is common and seems to be growing, and the ignorant comment is a bane to many Page owners and bloggers.

I shared this picture, "The Lincoln Memorial Disproves Old Earth Theories" about stalactites and stalagmites that had formed quickly under the memorial. Apparently, this guy didn't bother to pay attention to the excerpts in the caption or look at the two links. He complained, "The formation of concrete stalagmites and stalactites is a fundamentally different chemistry than limestone formations in cave systems. This proves nothing." It proves you didn't do your homework, Danny Boy. That assertion has been discredited. Yes, I deleted that comment as a courtesy to the readers.Near about that time, someone left a rude comment on the site of a recent podcast interview I had. Here are the first two paragraphs, then I lost interest in the question-begging epithet and other fallacies of the so-called "Dr. Barton" (as if I didn't know who this really is):

Sorry. I tried but, Mr. Sorensen, you presented so much scientific misinformation and half-truths that I had to turn you off within 15 minutes and go listen to some people who know what they’re talking about discuss fossilized plants, viruses, and the “Bible” (though not on the same podcast).Your understanding of C14 was woefully inadequate and misleading. The reason that there is a set level of C14 in rock that is millions of years old is because of background radiation. If you look at the literature and studies, then you will find that C14 decays to the point where radiation from other sources (uranium, cosmic radiation, and the like) creates a background level of it that can vary from place to place and from geological layer to geological layer.

Not only is he insulting me, but the host of the show and the intelligence of readers, and insulting the scientists who do the radiometric dating in the first place. He used the question-begging epithet, circumstantial ad hominem attacks, straw man, arbitrary false assertions, and other fallacies. Further, he ignored the facts that carbon-14 has been detected in coal, diamonds and other places where, according to old-earth dogma, it "should not" be. And it's not in a couple of isolated instances, either. His highfalutin posturing only made him look foolish, and I don't think he understands carbon-14 as well as he pretends. This video should help educate that "doctor":

Cherry-picking to misrepresent Christians and creationists is not limited to the Bible and high-profile people. I've had my own material blatantly misrepresented, quotes taken out of context (including the use of parts of quotes, and in the case of comments, the material to which I was responding), straw man arguments, appeal to motive fallacies, and more. I've been called a "liar" without evidence (unless you count repeatedly asserting it, which is a fallacy in itself). These blatant misrepresentations... I get a mite irked being called a liar by liars. My experiences are typical, as I have seen this happen to many others as well. That's one reason that I encourage Christians to learn about logical fallacies, so they don't have to be intimidated by atheopaths and anti-creationists.

If the shoe fits, etc. In his whining, he ignored the main point of the article, cherry-picked this section, and then did not even quote all of it, just "I've been called a 'liar' without evidence..."! Since he used the appeal to motive fallacy (and others), I'm not going to link to that comment and reward his bullying and ego.I disremember when this happened, but someone was being insulting because the "Oort Cloud" was described as a made-up rescuing device because short-term comets should have been used up long ago, giving evidence for a young solar system. An owlhoot came along and said...well, take a look at his comment and my response:

Used under "Fair Use" for education.

One of the best was several years ago. I was telling someone about the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, and the guy couldn't get around that fact, but still clung to his blind faith in evolutionism. He replied that maybe DNA was simpler back then. Oh, please.People need to pay attention. Not only do keyboard warriors like this need to learn the current science of their own worldviews so that creationists don't have to keep correcting them, but (as seen in the first two instances) they need to read or listen to the material so they don't embarrass themselves and self-respecting evolutionists. Of course, if they weren't so hell-bent on rejecting the Creator and believing something that ain't so (evolution) despite contrary evidence, they wouldn't feel the need to act like this.

I reckon the biggest facepalm is that these jaspers are rebelling against God and the authority of his Word. I'm not going to go into detail on this again, but I'll say that In an atheistic and evolutionary universe, science is not possible; logic does not apply, nor would there be the expected uniformity of nature. Many of them seek meaning in attacking "religion", creation, and God (while also pretending he does not exist), butGod gave them life, and gives life meaning.

And creationists? You have to work at it, you can't refute evolution through captioned pictures and only reading introductions to articles. Scriptural and scientific truth is on the side of biblical creation. Let's act like it.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Are there volcanoes on Venus? In some ways, that seems fitting, what with Venus being exceptionally hot and full of toxic gasses. However, it's supposed to be billions of years old, and that would cause difficulties for "deep time" advocates. Other "old" objects in the solar system are not acting their age, including Pluto, so Venus can join the party.

The tortured surface of Venus appears to have been formed through recent geologic processes, and its rocks contain no record of deep time. What if Venus were young rather than 4.5 billion years old? It would explain quite a bit, including a brand-new discovery made by scientists peering through its dense atmosphere.Gathering clues from Venus' cloud-covered surface is no easy task. Astronomers based at Brown University stitched together 2,463 images of a rift system called Ganiki Chasma taken by the Venus Express spacecraft as it orbited the planet. The astronomers created a time-lapse mosaic of the rift system and saw intriguing spots that would suddenly burn bright then quickly fade.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

When someone points out that evolution has not, and cannot, be observed, you run into problems with definitions. Sometimes there are multiple meanings to words and people can"talk past" each other, so it's best to nail down the definitions for potentially hazardous terms. Like evolution, which has several definitions.

You can encounter someone asserting, "What's the problem? Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies, and has been frequently observed. Therefore, evolution is true". (This is occasionally accompanied with an abusive ad hominem like, "...you ignorant creationist fool, you".) Problem is, that owlhoot is being sneaky by changing up the meanings of the word evolution.It's a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Sure, creationists know full well that there are variations (such as eye color). But that's not evolution in the amoeba-to-atheopath sense, no new information is added, and so on. If we're talking about evolution where something changes into something completely different, let's start and finish with that, Theodore, and don't be switching definitions on us, you savvy?

Creationists should learn to spot the fallacy of equivocation—where someone illegitimately switches the definition of a word in the middle an argument—because evolutionists often trade on this error. S.U. from the US needed assistance answering one such evolutionist.He first quotes the critic and then follows with his request for help:

Monday, July 27, 2015

Because the giant panda has the configuration of a carnivore, some evolutionists say that it is an evolutionary failure, or left behind by evolution. This speculation is based on evolutionary presuppositions and limited thinking, and entirely unwarranted.

These critters are baffling, I'll allow. They are classified as bears and have the innards of carnivores, but primarily eat bamboo. A lot of it. Bamboo isn't exactly full of protein and other nutrients, so what gives with these black and white vegetarians? It turns out that they know how to get what they need, their Creator gave them the right equipment, despite the protestations of Darwin's Disciples.

Is the giant panda a poorly evolved vegetarian? Or highly specialized, well-designed herbivore, a living link to a time when all animals were vegetarians? Despite having teeth, jaws, and a short digestive tract typical of the more carnivorous members of the bear family, the giant panda depends on a bamboo diet. Though occasionally enjoying a meaty meal, the giant panda subsists primarily on a daily diet of 20 to 30 pounds of bamboo leaves, stems, and shoots. The giant panda is an endangered species, and its vulnerability to habitat destruction makes understanding of how it meets its nutritional needs of great importance if it is to be protected rather than allowed to succumb to the evolutionary ideal of survival of the fittest.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

In July 2013, I posted material on how there are still some people who believe that the Earth is nicely bolted down. Yes, despite observable science, they hold to the geocentric view, that the sun goes around the Earth, and not the geokinetic solar system we know and love. Some of this comes from an insistence on clinging to misunderstood Bible verses. To see that post, click on "Geocentrism — An Embarrassment to Creationists" and especially the article that is linked.

"Bolted Earth", modified from an image by NASA's Earth Observatory

Before we get to the good stuff, I have to give some information from the Irony Board. There's a Page on Facebook called "Evolution is a Religion of Origins". While they post some occasional good anti-evolution material, it is run by a vituperative Sacred Name cultist. If you disagree with the One True Church™, you're a pagan. While I believe that the teachings of Roman Catholicism do not lead to salvation, this cultist has an extreme hatred for Catholicism, and is also a geocentrist. Ironically, that Page posted material affirming geocentrism by Robert Sungenis. Problem is, Sungenis is president of Catholic Apologetics International! Feel the irony? Sungenis is behind the "Galileo Was Wrong" site, and was involved in a film called The Principle. He has a bad reputation, even among some other Catholics.It's ironic that some people who think they're being true to the Bible and reject geokinetic (heliocentric) science as "pagan" are promoting a pagan science that went back to Ptolemy, Plato, and Aristotle! They used epicycles and other rescuing devices to get around the difficulties in geocentrism. Atheists and anti-creationist evolutionists frequently employ various rescuing devices and excuses when confronted with reality. That's natural, everyone uses rescuing devices to some extent because we argue from our worldviews. It's just that anti-creationists and atheists cling to them beyond the point of absurdity. For instance, some claim that everyone is lying about the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis. That's one huge conspiracy theory, Theodore!Here's the payoff. Bob Enyart was asked to support The Principle, and was misled by the producer as to its content. He apologized, and did a two-part radio show rebutting the movie. You'll find out just how disingenuous Sungenis and friends are with their propaganda. The links are below, and they have a passel of information that gets down to Earth (heh!), plus the material in the podcasts themselves. The audio is free to listen online or download. One note, Bob and Fred talk about the Hydroplate Theory of Dr. Walt Brown. I don't know enough about it, some creationists think it's great, other creationists consider it weak, so I am not endorsing it.

Friday, July 24, 2015

I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on.

First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don't want to watch the whole shootin' match at one time, or want to use it in a group setting. (I like the music, too. Sometimes background music gets overbearing, and this complimented the video quite well.) There is good use of animation as well as other footage, so it's not just a series of interviews. Each scientist is named in a caption at his first appearance, and this is repeated in each section, which is helpful if you're viewing it in installments. Also, each section has summary bullet points at the end of each section.What follows are comments on the sections in the video, plus a few of my own.Natural Selection. Interestingly, natural selection is something that creationists and Darwinists agree on. (In fact, creationist Edward Blyth proposed the concept before Darwin claimed it.) New species arise, and that is a part of the creationist model. Unfortunately, the term "species" is blurry, and can mean different things to different people. Different iguanas on the Galapagos Islands can interbreed, are they separate species? Natural selection does not cause evolution by giving new genetic information. Instead, it is a fine-tuning of systems; survival of the fittest does not explain the arrival of the fittest.Genetics. I've had disciples of Darwin smugly assert that genetics proves evolution. Not hardly! The more we learn about genetics, the more we see that it is hostile to evolution. For that matter, evolutionary bias led to the concept of "Junk" DNA, which has been soundly refuted. Scientists have found information, communication (in multiple dimensions), and "languages". The human genome is fading through genetic entropy, and humanity is rusting out like an old car; if we were as old as evolutionists claim, humanity should be extinct.Origin of Life. Some owlhoots try to distance themselves from the origin of life, saying that it has nothing to do with evolution. That is based on ignorance, or just plain dishonesty. Even so, they want to defend the failed Miller-Urey experiment, which produced mixed amino acids. Did life come from "primordial soup"? (It's condensed, just add water — oh, wait. Water is not good for it. Never mind.)Chance is not feasible, and even if through time and chance you obtained some amino acids, you have the chirality problem to make things worse. Keep going, there's the ATP synthase motor that life depends on. Amazingly complex and efficient, but it can't exist without life, and life can't exist without it. Now what, Darwin?

Since the origin of life on Earth is clearly impossible, some people invoke panspermia, where life came here from way up yonder. Right, can't happen here, so it's a problem for the space aliens. That's science?Fossil Record. The long-age standard explanation is that fossils take a long time to form. Not so. For fossils to form at all, the proper conditions are required — and they can form rapidly. Charles Darwin predicted that the missing transitional forms (that is, clear fossil evidence of something evolving into something else) would be found. This has not happened. Looks like he was living on faith, huh? His faith was unfounded, because there should be a passel of transitional fossils, but there are only a few disputed forms. And there are millions of fossils, so there should have been plenty of fossil evidence for evolution.Evolution's Achilles' Heels has a good explanation and animation about the Cambrian explosion, where complex life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record. This frustrates evolutionists, but fits in well with what biblical creationists expect to find from Genesis Flood models.Another problem is what they sometimes call "stasis". That is, a "living fossil" is found, where something was considered either very old or even extinct, but the living counterpart for fossils that's alleged to be "millions of years old" is virtually unchanged. Invoking "stasis", and saying that the organism didn't change because it didn't have to is, well, downright silly.The problem for long-agers with soft tissues in dinosaur bones is mentioned, as is the fact that DNA of Neanderthals has been found (I did tell you that genetics is hostile to evolution). Not only should such "old" things like the tissues and DNA not even exist after long ages, but studies have shown that Neanderthals were another group of humans that interbred with the ancestors of other humans; their genome was like ours.Geologic Column. If you're showing this video to a group, I reckon that it would be a good move to show this section immediate after the previous one if you have time.

Back in the day, geology was established by creationists, who viewed science from a biblical perspective. Then people thought that unsupportable assertions in geology (written by anti-biblical naturalists) was a better idea, so uniformitarianism took over. Uniformitarianism is "the present is the key to the past", where slow and gradual processes observed today must have happened over long periods of time. This view rejects catastrophism, the Genesis Flood at the time of Noah that shaped the Earth rapidly. Basically, you have a little water over a lot of time, or a lot of water over a little time. That's over-simplified, but you get the idea.In the mid to late 20th century, geologists began sneaking catastrophe through the back door of the saloon, buying it a sarsaparilla, and then shooing it back out again. In other words, uniformitarian geologists have been realizing that their views are fundamentally flawed, and they grudgingly admit that catastrophes must be valid explanations at times. Naturally (heh!), they don't admit to the Noachian Flood, but it's a start. One area where quick formation of geologic features can be seen is Mt. St. Helens; layers were laid down and a canyon was carved very rapidly. Apply this small example of catastrophic geologic processes to the Genesis Flood, and you can get a glimmer of the tremendous energy involved at that time. I'd like to see CMI put their animators to work on a video about the Lake Missoula Flood, but that's just me.Plate tectonics is discussed, and how predictions from biblical Flood geologists are supported. We have continental plate subduction, rapid magnetic field reversals, and more. Algae is found in both "old" and "recent" layers of the geologic column, and the problems of rock folding is addressed.Radiometric Dating. The basic principles of radiometric dating are covered, and the assumptions required for the process. There are serious challenges to the method, such as helium in zircon, carbon-14 in coal from different strata and different regions, and carbon-14 in diamonds. None of these should exist according to deep time worldviews. (Although not covered in this segment, rocks of known age from Mt. St. Helens were tested by this process and yielded wildly inaccurate and varying ages. This has happened other times as well.)Cosmology. The dominant view of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang, is covered here. The Big Bang has many difficulties such as the horizon problem, "dark matter" and "dark energy" posited as ad hoc explanations for lack of scientific evidence for the Big Bang, and the "inflation period". Indeed, the origin of the universe is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with practical science, since it cannot be tested or repeated.The "red shift" of objects supposedly shows the distance of celestial objects, but there are "near" red shift objects in close proximity to "far" red shift objects. If CMI wanted to make the segment quite a bit longer, they could have gone into much more detail about celestial objects, including those in our own solar system, acting "young". But they made their point quite handily.Ethical Implications. I figured this eighth segment to be the "Why it matters" part of the video. Evolution is not just a field of study for various scientists and parlor discussions. Instead, it has serious implications for life itself, because evolutionary principles comprise a worldview (a topic discussed in this Weblog many times). Evolutionists operate from their paradigms, but seldom examine their philosophies. The sanctity of life does not fit evolutionary views — abortion is easy, as is the elimination of the unfit. And who defines how someone is "unfit"? The mass murders by totalitarians in the 20th century were done by people following an evolutionary worldview.Evolution does not explain death and suffering beyond what is an expected daily occurrence, and offers no hope or comfort for people. However, the Bible contains explanations for the conditions of human experience that evolution cannot cover. Despite the evidence refuting evolution, its adherents cling to it so they can reject the Creator, the Fall of Man, and Redemption through Jesus Christ.As you can figure, I highly recommend Evolution's Achilles' Heels. You can purchase it online at their store as a DVD, Blu Ray, or direct download. There is a free PDF study guide that you can download as well. This guide will be useful for individuals and groups who want more detailed material than this video can cover. Also, the book is available as a paperback and in e-book formats.As I study on it, I realize that I do have a big regret: that I did not have it when I was giving a biblical creation science class in church. Now I'm giving serious thought to kicking up my heels and getting a 5-pack of the videos to give away for Christmas presents. (It's kind of funny, I realized while I was writing this that I'm wearing my "Question Evolution" T-shirt.)

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Typical portrayals of Stone Age and Bronze Age people is unflattering, to say the least. They were stupid brutes that didn't know how to do much except hunt and gather, and then began to develop agriculture. But this is based on evolutionary presuppositions. Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists keep getting surprised when more information gets telegraphed into Fort Darwin, as ancient people were far more advanced than assumptions give them credit for.

Modified from "The Tower of Babel" by Gustave Dore

The so-called Bronze Age was actually very dynamic, showing that people had their own cultures and were migrating. An ambitious project of sequencing human DNA from that era surprises secularists, but not so much for biblical creationists, since the results support the biblical timeline back to Babel.

Scientists used new techniques to sequence 101 ancient human genomes believed to be from Bronze-Age populations in Europe. Their findings indicate a massive migratory influx of genetic diversity just a few thousand years ago. This data also coincides with known language diversification patterns, providing strong evidence for the dispersion of people groups at the Tower of Babel.The so-called Bronze Age, estimated by secular researchers to span from 1,000 to 3,000 B.C., is thought to be a time of great cultural change due to the diversity of artifacts typically found with ritually buried human skeletons. In this current report, the researchers stated that "the Bronze Age was a highly dynamic period involving large-scale population migrations and replacements, responsible for shaping major parts of present-day demographic structure in both Europe and Asia."

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

It's been pointed out many times that scientists are not the impartial paragons of virtue that many people believe. When it comes to fame and fortune, some can be sneaky sidewinders — just like us reg'lar folks. Using bad science, just-so stories, and even fraud are almost expected when trying to prove goo-to-geologist evolution, since it happens so much in the cult of evolutionism. Even so, many of us reckon that they should be living up to higher standards.

Seriously, what kind of ethical standards and integrity can be expected from people who hold to a materialistic worldview? When they deal from the bottom of the deck, they're following a "survival of the fittest" paradigm; having scientists police the integrity of scientists is like asking a burglar to hold your wallet while you make a phone call. The final authority for ethics and morality is the Creator, who revealed his plan in his written Word, not another materialistic method.

The frequency of articles about misconduct, fraud and reproducibility show that scientists’ integrity cannot be assumed by a “scientific method.”Scientists are only people. They are not immune to the temptations and failing of others. Peer review and the “scientific method” (if there is such a thing) can guard against some misinformation getting out, but no method is immune from character defects. All conclusions from data must pass through fallible human beings. The following reports show that problems of scientific integrity loom large, despite a method that is widely thought to protect against them.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

The geologic column exists in many textbooks, but is not found in nature. It is presented in a nice, tidy order where simple life forms are at the bottom, with more complex evolving up to the top. However, the geologic column and index fossils are constructs of the imagination. Some owlhoots have trolled, "The geologic column proves evolution, and there are no fossils out of order". They don't know what they're talking about, there are fossils "out of order" according to evolutionary timelines. So, it exists, but not in the way microbes-to-mechanic evolution want us to think.

Modified from an image from the US Geological Survey

Do biblical creation models do a better job of explaining what we find in the fossil record? That's a mite difficult. There is a general order to be had in the fossil record, and the Genesis Flood models explain a great deal. Yes, there are disagreements among Flood geologists as to the details — which is not much of a surprise, scientists disagree about details and put forward differing models all the time. More research is needed in this are, but the basics are agreed upon.

Order in the fossil record is one of the most popular arguments for evolution. If the fossil record has a consistent vertical order it’s claimed the fossil record reflects eons of evolution. Evolutionists also think it’s a powerful argument against the Bible and young-earth creationism. If most of the fossils formed catastrophically during Noah’s Flood, then that supposedly means that the Flood would produce a random order in the fossil record.However, flood geologists have long rejected this caricature of Noah’s Flood as physically unrealistic. Even large catastrophes need not produce completely random patterns. Creationists have developed several explanations for that order in the context of Noah’s Flood.In today’s correspondence, CMI’s Shaun Doyle explores some of these factors to show how they might forge an explanation of fossil order consistent with the Bible.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Advocates of algae-to-astronomer evolution come up with some wild exaggerations and unmitigated fabrications to bolster their worldview. It's mighty bothersome when professing Christians pull the same shenanigans in the pursuit of ridiculing Christians who have a high view of the Bible and creation. These claims can be dispensed with through simple logic and science.

Dr. Joel Duff made some abnormal assertions about stone artifacts. He claims that they number in the trillions, and that there is no way they could be mistaken for the work of nature. In addition, they are dated with typical uniformitarian circular reasoning. The numbers do not withstand scrutiny, and this owlhoot doesn't bother to consider flood activity that would easily explain many of the things he thinks are man-made tools.

A recent posting at the Naturalis Historia website confidently claims that trillions of artifacts found in Africa and elsewhere prove that the young-earth creation view is ridiculous. The website’s author is Dr. Joel Duff, a biology professor at the University of Akron and a member of the Presbyterian Church of America. Speaking about himself, he says,

I am fascinated by God’s creation and am concerned that modern conservative evangelicals have increasing [sic] abandoned the study of natural revelation resulting in both a lack of appreciation for the “good” creation and the inability to assess the results of modern science.

This is a misleading and ad hominem statement. There are literally thousands of conservative evangelicals in the world today with a Masters or PhD degree in science who hold to young-earth creation (such as scientists at Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society and many other organizations all over the world, including the archeologists at the Associates for Biblical Research). And the number of such evangelical scientists has been increasing, not decreasing, over the past fifty years, much to the consternation of evolutionists. These creation scientists have not abandoned the study of nature. Many of them are involved in technical research and they don’t lack the ability to assess the results of modern science. They do appreciate and enjoy God’s creation, which is in one sense “good” because it bears the marks of His brilliant and omnipotent creative handiwork. But they also know that it is not the “very good” creation of Genesis 1 because it has been suffering in bondage to corruption (Romans 8:19–232) ever since God cursed the creation when Adam sinned (Genesis 3:14–19 and 5:29) and which will be removed only when Jesus Christ returns to make a new heavens and earth (Acts 3:21; Revelation 22:3). That’s a major reason why these creation scientists reject the evolutionary story of millions of years.

Friday, July 17, 2015

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although an earlier article from 2014 was reasonably popular, I reckoned I had to rewrite it. Same stable, different horse. What is a cult, really? As I have emphasized before, definitions are important so that everyone is speaking the same language. People have different connotations of the word "cult", such as black magic rituals in front of scary idols in far off places, mass suicides (such as the People's Temple led by atheist Jim Jones), and so on.Others think of pseudo-Christian groups like the Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the Sacred Name cultist's Page on Facebook that pretends to be creationist, and so on. Some members of groups that are called "cults" get a burr under their saddles over the word because it is so emotionally charged, has association with the aforementioned exotic images, and that it implies that they are nasty people. There are people who suggest avoiding the word and using something else, such as "alternative religion" or "new religious movement". But most people do not mean the word in a strong pejorative sense, it is simply succinct. Those people who come to your door and want to convert you to the One True Church™ are generally nice, moral people who make good neighbors.Sometimes, groups may have reasonable beliefs but are extremely strict and have practices that could be termed "cultic" or "cult-like".What are some characteristics of a cult?

Exclusivity

Isolation

Persecution Complexes

Special Knowledge

Indoctrination

Group Think

Common Appearance Standards

Evolution is actually an ancient religion, and even with a scientific veneer, it is religious in nature. Some of the above characteristics apply to evolutionism:

Exclusivity is the idea that "We are the only ones with the truth and everyone else is wrong". This fits the attitudes of Darwinistas. They know that creationists are wrong, will not examine the evidence we present, and often use childish epithets like "liar" instead of using the minds that God gave them. Many of these people will appeal to the "authority" of high-profile atheists and evolutionists, treating them like popes.

Isolation to keep members separate so they do not get infected with theology that interferes with the official positions of the organizations. Sometimes evolutionists who wish to stop drinking the Darwine, consider that evolution is not scientific, and check out evidence for creation science for themselves are mocked by their peers. However, I am unaware of enforced isolation practices, just ostracism, which is almost the same thing.

Persecution Complexes. This is seen in abundance. Fundamentalist evolutionists often go on self-appointed patrols (emphasis on "troll") to rid the Internet (and the word) of creation science. When creationists wish to present our views, they essentially ridicule and shout us down. Then the evolutionists are shown their logical fallacies, bad "science", religious attitudes, and so on. Many get blocked from social media. Then they hypocritically claim that they are "persecuted", but they are the ones doing the bullying and persecuting.

Indoctrination into the belief system. Cultists are hammered into believing the official positions of the group, and often get flustered when shown flaws in their views. The same with Darwinists, except that many choose to be indoctrinated. This site, and the sites to which the articles link, show how textbooks are inaccurate, peer review is flawed, scientific papers are recalled, hasty "discoveries" are announced and proved to be embarrassing to evolution, dishonest tall-tales are passed off as facts, and more. But the evo faithful believe the utterances of scientists and seem afraid to honestly examine the evidence.

I was listening to Conrad Mbewe discuss how religious con artists are in Africa, acting like witch doctors. They get people to trust them, and the "Man of God" takes advantage of them. People have misplaced faith in scientists, and believe what "scientists say". The "Man of Science" is often conning people with his magisterial pronouncements about origins. Indeed, the "Man of Science" is often the village witch doctor, old son.Many people do not know what their religion officially believes. Tell a Roman Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or whatever else what their "on the books" beliefs are, many deny them. Showing them where scriptural reasoning fails their doctrines baffles many. (Unfortunately, too many professing Christians are weak in orthodox core doctrines as well.) The same thing happens with anti-creationists. They do not use good logic, and creationists often have to correct them on their own science. Still, they "know" we're "wrong", and fight red in tooth and claw to deny the truth.Another thing cultists do is seek converts. Anti-creationists attempt to belittle, intimidate, ridicule, and find other ways to cause doubt in creationists in an attempt to change our minds; most cultists are much nicer than that. Those of us who know our theology and science stand up to them. They hate that.Whether it comes to theology, creation science, politics or whatever, I keep trying to emphasize that people need to learn critical thinking. In the case of aberrant religions, know your Bible and theology. For matters of science, use some logic and examine evidence; do not get information about creationists from anti-creationists sites and forums, they are seldom honest.These people are involved in non-Christian religions and worldviews because they're suppressing the truth. The only way out of this mental mess and eternal suffering is to repent and believe on Jesus Christ, who is God the Creator in the flesh. He was crucified, died, buried, and rose again from the dead, defeating death. Find out what he has to say in his written Word.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Scientists presenting the information on Pluto pointed out several features and admitted that Pluto looks young. Naturally, evolution's Luddites will be scrambling to find excuses to justify clinging to "deep time". We should expect a wagon-load of "maybe ... "perhaps..." "it could be..." and various just-so stories presented as actual science. After all, they did quite a bit of that when other planets and moons in the solar system presented themselves as young and active.

By the way, I saw some mighty creative pictures on Facebook. I did a flyby of a bibliophobe's site where the writer was ridiculing creationists about Pluto. He was saying that creationists were not a part of it, and that creation science itself was not involved. Really? This tinhorn did not present anything other than a straw man argument and mockery. How does he know that no creationists were involved? Also, he conveniently ignores that most of the founders of modern science were biblical creationists! But no, "real scientists" cannot be creationists — right? Not hardly! I seriously doubt that they bothered to read the articles linked in the first paragraph. Or if they did, they dismissed the articles (if they understood them).By the way, I wonder if this guy and his few readers know that Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made accurate predictions about several planetary magnetic fields that have been verified, and the evolutionists were way, way off. He did this based on his creationist worldview. If it's possible to measure the magnetic field of Pluto, many of us are curious to see if this remaining prediction will be accurate as well.People really should quit hating God's Word and start believing it. The evidence is that God created the universe recently. He's the Creator, he makes the rules, and we really should humble ourselves and find out what he has to say.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Darwinists want things both ways. On one hand, evolution is force that nobody can stop. On the other hand, when confronted with evidence of no evolution, they fall back on "stasis", meaning, "It didn't have to evolve, so it didn't. A banquet-sized salamander fossil of six feet (two meters) shows no appreciable change with its modern amphibious counterparts (like other fossils reveal), so evolution didn't come calling at their doors.

Credit: US NPS photo

For that matter, they "see" evolution even when there is none present, and when there is no evidence, just an assumption that it's evolution what done did whatever characteristic we see. What really takes the rag off the bush is that even though Darwinoids are plumb out of evidence, they invoke their own god of the gaps, one owlhoot goes it a mite further and says that very slight changes in salamanders show the "invisible finger of evolution". More like waving their finger in the face of God, if you catch my drift.

Scientists in Portugal unearthed a "super salamander" which, although "weird compared to anything today," is still very much a salamander.The fossilized bones of the six-foot (two meter) animal were discovered on a hillside dig "chock-full" of bones and declared to originate from the "Upper Triassic" period, some 200 million years ago according to evolutionary dating. While evolutionists like to claim that variations in traits within a species are proof of evolution, salamanders have always been salamanders regardless of their size.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

People who operate from a secular uniformitarian "deep time" worldview are baffled by the magnetic field of the moon, offering unsupportable conjectures based on poor reasoning. The best explanation is that the moon was created recently with the rest of the solar system.

Original image credit (before modification) by NASA.

Analysis of rocks brought back from Apollo 11 shows that the moon did have a magnetic field at one time, but there is little to none now. Scientists commence to assuming, without evidence, that since the Earth has a dynamo, so did the moon. They might oughta think things through before offering "evidence" that won't hold up.

A recent paper by Clèment Suavet et al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that uniformitarian scientists, who assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field. They don’t understand why it was formerly strong but now doesn’t exist, and how it could exist in the first place.Suavet and his colleagues have carefully analyzed the magnetism of two basalt samples brought from the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts (figure 1). The rocks became magnetized in an ancient magnetic field of about 0.69 (±0.16) Gauss. That’s a bit stronger than the earth’s magnetic field today (0.6 Gauss at the poles, 0.3 Gauss at the equator). They cite a very conservative lower limit for the moon rocks’ magnetizing field strength of 0.13 Gauss, but I don’t see the need for such caution, except perhaps to mollify colleagues who want the moon’s early field to be weaker.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Many of us have had the experience of jumping into water at the wrong angle and getting a bad smack, and it gets worse with a higher starting point. Divers in competition can gracefully slip into the water from 33 feet (10 meters), but great heights can be dangerous and even lethal. Gannets are large sea birds that do this to hunt fish from as high as 250 feet (90 meters), and do it repeatedly.

Northern Gannet / Pixabay / agerezs

The entire thing is very complex. Northern gannets do their hunting for five months, then spend the other seven months of the year living on the sea. There are many features in place for their survival, and everything has to be in place, at the same time, or nothing works or makes sense. Of course, proponents of slime-to-sea-bird evolution praise the puny false god of evolution, but don't have anything to support their faith. With all this complexity, the logical conclusion is that their Creator designed everything; simply asserting EvolutionDidIt is ridiculous.

On a June morning in the North Atlantic, a shoal of herring rises near the surface, unaware of danger. Yet many will not see another day, for high overhead appears a flock of large, white-plumaged birds with splashes of jet black on their wing tips. These are northern gannets. They are hungry, and their chicks are impatiently waiting for food 40 miles (64 km) away on a remote Canadian island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The capabilities of these seafaring dive bombers are unmatched in the animal world.

Monday, July 13, 2015

by Cowboy Bob SorensenWhenever a writer or lecturer wants to make a point, he or she will ride herd on the citations, supporting links, and so on to make a point. It's the way things have been done for a mighty long time. What is not acceptable is to "quote mine" and "cherry pick" material to support your thesis. Creationists are often falsely accused of doing these things.

Pixabay / Hans

When evangelist Ray Comfort made his poor "the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare" claim, he was soundly criticized by atheists. Atheistic pope Clinton Richard Dawkins called him "the banana man" and an "ignorant fool". Nice, huh? (Dawkins is persistently strident, and then wonders why people don't like him.) When Comfort was educated that the banana was intelligently designed by humans, he apologized and admitted his blunder. (He supposedly said, though I can find no original source material, "I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified through hybridization".) Was Ray guilty of cherry picking? No. Lack of research? Definitely. Atheopaths have consistently attacked him for this, even though he admitted his error. Do a search, and you'll find all sorts of vile, irrational remarks from the "I (heart) Science and Reason" crowd belittling him. Most normal people would let it go. But no, they continue the attacks, not only on that topic (such as this from the the misnamed "Friendly Atheist"), but also on his Evolution vs God video. There are claims that he edited out (that is, cherry-picked away) material that would have supported evolution. The accusations could have been easily supported if the scientists interviewed in the film actually produced evidence at some point. Instead, atheists and evolutionists cherry-picked information and misrepresented (even libeled) Ray Comfort. That's typical, since it seems that whenever creationists present evidence against evolution, especially in documentaries, they get falsely accused of various crimes against humanity and science.In an older video called "The Genesis Debate — Skeptic vs Creationist", Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland were the participants. Willis is an atheist, and to back up his worldview, he disgraced himself and his co-workers by indulging in massive cherry-picking, as well as blatant misrepresentation of Wieland and creation science itself. He also had many fallacies, including hasty generalization, making a possible exception into a rule, misrepresentation, veiled ad hominem attacks, and blatant poisoning of the well at the end. If I was his supervisor, I would have sacked that tinhorn Willis for his terrible handling of both science and logic, as well as his unprofessional demeanor. Wieland conducted himself the way a scientist Christian debater should.

He justifies his bigotry and fallacies with more bigotry and fallacies.

Misotheists will seek out alleged contradictions in the Bible, or find things that they just don't like, then call the Bible "evil". Although the owlhoot in the above image does know that the Bible is an "old book", many of his kind fail to do their homework. The Bible needs to be examined in full context when claiming "evil", such as historical, cultural, religious, linguistic, immediate context, and more. Do they do this? Not hardly! Instead, they quote mine and cherry-pick items for their straw man and well-poisoning ridicule, then call those of us who understand it "stupid". Wrong (Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7).Cherry-picking to misrepresent Christians and creationists is not limited to the Bible and high-profile people. I've had my own material blatantly misrepresented, quotes taken out of context (including the use of parts of quotes, and in the case of comments, the material to which I was responding), straw man arguments, appeal to motive fallacies, and more. I've been called a "liar" without evidence (unless you count repeatedly asserting it, which is a fallacy in itself). These blatant misrepresentations... I get a mite irked being called a liar by liars. My experiences are typical, as I have seen this happen to many others as well. That's one reason that I encourage Christians to learn about logical fallacies, so they don't have to be intimidated by atheopaths and anti-creationists.Do Christians quote mine and cherry pick? Unfortunately, some of us have done so. Taking part of a sentence out of context or leaving out key words to make Dr. Evo look like he's renounced evolution is wrong. It is not wrong to use accurate quotes from evolutionists who admit flaws in their evidence. However, evolutionists (not just Internet trolls) are prone to cherry-pick data to get us to accept propaganda they falsely present.

Picking cherries sounds like good, clean fun, but it isn’t always a good thing. In origins science the practice of “cherry picking” refers to an analytical fallacy—using a few selected illustrations to demonstrate a point, as if those examples fairly exemplify a generalized trend when they actually don’t.Illustrations can’t prove universals. So, are all illustrations misleading? No. Illustrative examples by themselves are not misleading—unless and until those examples are suggested as representing “all” or “most” or “generally” when those qualifiers don’t fit the facts.Two illustrations follow that exemplify this fallacy. One quotes a federal court decision, the other involves comparing the genomes of humans and chimpanzees.